ArticleScientific reports2025
Marginal adaptation and porosity of calcium silicate-based cements in furcation perforations: a micro-CT comparative study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Root Perforations: Etiology, Diagnosis, Prognostic Factors, and Contemporary Repair Materials: A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- The Shear Bond Strength Between Calcium Silicate-Based Biomaterials and Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Comparative Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Obturation quality analysis of furcation perforations repaired with different magnifications and biomaterials.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Coronal microleakage of two intraorifice bioceramic barriers in single-rooted premolars:Dental research journal · 2026Article
- Repair of furcal perforations using different calcium silicate cements: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This ex-vivo study compares the adaptation, porosity, and sealing performance of ProRoot MTA, NeoPutty, and Biodentine in standardized, simulated furcation perforations created in extracted mandibular molars using clinical evaluation and high-resolution micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Thirty-six mandibular molars with furcation perforations were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 12). Clinical evaluation assessed adaptation, porosity, and overfilling, while micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) provided quantitative data on voids and gaps. Statistical analysis used chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U tests. NeoPutty and ProRoot MTA showed superior adaptation compared to Biodentine (p < 0.05). Biodentine showed higher porosity (28.44%) than ProRoot MTA (0%) and NeoPutty (8.3%) (p < 0.001). Biodentine also had the highest void volume (1.05 mm
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.